Ministry of Justice

The BOLD (Better Outcomes through Linked Data) Partnerships programme has carried out extensive work on children experiencing parental imprisonment, with children under 18 as their main focus.

For children under 18, parental imprisonment can be a safeguarding and developmental issue with support needs focusing on emotional wellbeing, maintaining stability in education and school attendance, family support, and facilitating contact with the imprisoned parent where safe and appropriate. The purpose of this work is to provide early, preventative support to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes and unmet needs later in life (including as young adults).

For young adult dependants affected by parental imprisonment, the needs are likely to be around income, housing, and employment support. They may also be caring for younger siblings and may need mental health support. These services are offered through adult rather children’s services.

There is limited data on young adult dependants affected by imprisonment as there are no specific data collections relating to this age group. Support for young adult dependants affected by imprisonment is likely to overlap with employment support, youth transition from children’s social care, and youth justice related services.

The new offences relating to pornography in the Crime and Policy Act 2026 are not yet in force. They will come into force on 6 November 2026.

Rape and certain child sexual offences are excluded from the Progression Model as well as unlawful killing and indecent assault.

As set out in the Annual Statement published in January 2026, we are on track to deliver 14,000 additional places by 2031. Programme delivery timelines are subject to change as external factors can affect large-scale infrastructure projects. The supply projections set out in the Annual Statement include contingency to account for shifts in delivery timelines. The next Annual Statement will be published in due course and will contain updated demand and supply projections.

The information requested could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

The information requested could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

This Government inherited a prisons system days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe. Our landmark Sentencing Act 2026 will now deliver a more sustainable solution to the prison capacity crisis we inherited, including through the progression model, which will help ensure there are always enough prison places for the courts to be able to send people to custody.

We have interpreted your question as relating to prisoners who have returned to custody through recall following release under the progression model on 1 October 2026.

We regularly publish data on releases and recall to prison via our Accredited Official Statistics publication Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (available at: Offender management statistics quarterly - GOV.UK).

The requested information on returns to custody following releases under the progression model on 1 October cannot be provided because it would form a subset of the data that underpins future versions of these Official Statistics on total releases and recalls.

The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government will continue to engage with the Welsh Government and other partners on matters of devolution and the Government’s Rewiring the State Delivery Plan will set this out further. Effective partnership working is essential to improving outcomes for victims, reducing reoffending and building safer communities, which is underpinned by the significant benefits that flow from the single England and Wales legal jurisdiction. The Government wants to ensure the shared legislative framework, common sentencing powers and judicial arrangements, national operational standards and the ability to maintain consistency are sustained, while drawing on expertise and resources across both nations and delivering for the people of Wales.

UK Government ministers and officials have regular discussions with the Welsh Government and other Governments of the Nations on a range of matters, including devolution.

The Government is committed to ensuring that victims receive the entitlements set out in the Victims’ Code, including the right to be informed when key decisions are made during a police investigation, such as a suspect's bail status and any relevant bail conditions. That is why in January 2025 a new statutory duty in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 was commenced, which requires agencies who provide Code services to comply with the Code unless there is a good reason not to.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 also creates a framework to monitor certain criminal justice agencies’ compliance with the Victims’ Code, including police forces, with duties on those agencies to collect and share information on compliance. Once commenced, the framework will introduce local scrutiny and national oversight of compliance with the Victims' Code. The Victims and Courts Act 2026 strengthened the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner within the framework by requiring the Commissioner to produce their own report on Code compliance, to enable independent oversight of the criminal justice agencies compliance with the Code.

The Government is working with criminal justice agencies, including policing, to develop the data and metrics needed to support the assessment of compliance with the Victims’ Code.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice consulted on a new Victims’ Code, seeking views from victims, sector experts, criminal justice practitioners and young people. The consultation included consideration of how agencies communicate with victims and keep them informed throughout the criminal justice process. The Department is now taking the time to consider nearly 200 responses and will issue a public response ahead of finalising the new Code and bringing it into force. The findings will also help inform future work to understand and measure victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and the delivery of Victims’ Code rights.

This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Justice is devolved in Northern Ireland, so decisions on the recruitment and deployment of magistrates there are a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive.

Any Barnett consequentials arising from changes in UK Government spending are calculated in accordance with the established Barnett formula. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how to allocate its block grant, including funding for devolved justice services.

As at 30 September 2026 (the latest available data), the number of criminal cases in England and Wales listed for trial in 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 are as follows:

HMCTS Management Information – extracted Crown Operational Dashboard 15 October 2026

1. The management information presented in this table reflects what is recorded on relevant case-management systems on the date of extraction. The case management systems are continually updated and so the information presented will differ from any previously provided or published information. Management Information is subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale reporting system.
2. The number of listed trials for each year is defined as: a future trial date is listed where for that case a plea and trial preparation hearing (PTPH) has taken place. For context, the PTPH gives an indication of defendants' plea. Once a not guilty plea has been registered against any offence on the indictment, a trial may take place.
3. If a case has two trial dates listed, the latest trial date is captured.
4. Note that the data are quality assured to remove future trial dates that do not meet accuracy standards - this means there is potential for undercounting the true number of cases where a trial is listed in future years.

The Lord Chancellor has made clear his commitment to reduce the Crown Court backlog and enable victims to have their day in court faster – this is why we are acting on all fronts. We are investing heavily in Crown Court capacity, court infrastructure, uncapped sitting days, technology and legal aid. We are also driving greater efficiency in the courts through measures such as responsible AI innovation, case coordinators for every Crown Court centre, and close collaboration with the judiciary on their reforms to listing practices and virtual hearings guidance. The Government has also brought forward structural reforms through the Courts and Tribunals Bill – based on Lord Leveson’s recommendations in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts – to ease pressure on the Crown Court, ensure proportionate allocation of resource, and redress the balance between victims and defendants.

The specific information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Electronic monitoring and Sentencing Act 2026 guidance states that individuals may be exempted from electronic monitoring where wearing a tag is medically inappropriate. Poor mental health alone, such as anxiety, is not grounds for exemption.

Cases where a neurological condition makes tagging unsafe or impractical, or where an individual lacks the mental capacity to understand their electronic monitoring conditions may be exempt. Exemption decisions are made on a case by case basis, based on professional judgement and, where appropriate, relevant medical evidence.

Electronic monitoring and Sentencing Act 2026 guidance states that individuals may be exempted from electronic monitoring where wearing a tag is medically inappropriate. Poor mental health alone, such as anxiety, is not grounds for exemption.

Cases where a neurological condition makes tagging unsafe or impractical, or where an individual lacks the mental capacity to understand their electronic monitoring conditions may be exempt. Exemption decisions are made on a case by case basis, based on professional judgement and, where appropriate, relevant medical evidence.

The Government inherited a record and rising backlog. We know this means that thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are waiting years for their day in court, and justice delayed is justice denied. As at 30 September 2026 (the latest available date), the furthest-listed Crown Court trial was scheduled for December 2030.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Cafcass does not routinely record workplace attendance by employees' designated office location.

As of October 2026, 138 staff had the Manchester (Piccadilly Gate) office recorded as their designated office location. During the most recent working week for which data are available (5-9 October 2026), an average of 9.8 unique users per day accessed the Cafcass network from the Manchester office, with 49 unique daily logins recorded across the week. These figures are derived from network access data and represent unique daily logins from the Manchester office.

Cafcass does not require staff to attend an office for a specified number of days each week. Staff whose designated office location is Manchester may be working from another Cafcass office, attending court hearings, undertaking visits with children and families, or carrying out other work-related travel. Equally, individuals accessing the Manchester office may be based at another Cafcass location. As a result, the data should not be interpreted as the percentage of Manchester-based staff attending the office.

The Government has not made a specific assessment of the adequacy of current waiting times for Employment Tribunal (ET) cases in Scotland. However, we continue to monitor Employment Tribunal performance through regular engagement with HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) and the judiciary.

The Marriage Act 1949 prohibits marriage between certain close relatives; this is referred to as marriages within prohibited degrees. The prohibited degrees of relationship are listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, and include parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren and aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews. These existing statutory provisions already make clear that such marriages are not valid in the eyes of the law.

Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are private legal arrangements which allow a person to choose who they trust to make decisions on their behalf should they lose capacity. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a donor must have capacity when making an LPA and is entitled to make their own decisions about who they trust to act on their behalf. The LPA framework therefore reflects the importance of donor choice and autonomy. There are statutory eligibility requirements and safeguards which mean some people cannot be appointed as attorneys.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) can and does investigate concerns raised about an attorney's conduct and, where appropriate, apply to the Court of Protection to remove attorneys who are not meeting their duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Anyone can report a concern if they are worried about the behaviour of an attorney, including family members or friends, professionals, or members of the public.

In addition, OPG works closely with the financial services sector, including through its engagement with UK Finance, to ensure financial institutions understand when and how to report suspected fraud, financial abuse and other safeguarding concerns involving attorneys and deputies. Financial institutions are able to raise concerns with OPG through established reporting routes, so that concerns about an attorney's conduct can be investigated.

The Lord Chancellor in 2024-5 asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of homicide law and murder sentencing. The review will cover the full range of homicide offence issues, including the merits of reform on the issue of one punch manslaughter. The publication for the final report is due in 2028.

The Government will carefully consider any recommendations arising from the Law Commission’s review once it has concluded.

Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. All support to jurors is kept under regular review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible.

Jurors do not receive direct payment for jury service but may claim allowances towards financial loss, travel and subsistence. There has been no separate assessment of the maximum daily rate of the loss of earnings allowance or the financial impact of jury service on lower-paid workers.

We recognise that some individuals may experience financial difficulties serving. Applications for excusal due to exceptional circumstances, such as financial hardship, can be made when summoned. The proportion of those who apply for this is low, as shown by the latest figure below for 2025/2026:

• 7.6% of all excusals were due to financial hardship.

Courts may also be able to arrange to pay expenses during the trial if a juror is facing financial hardship.

The number of jurors who have claimed the loss of earnings allowance each year for the past five years is not routinely available and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We do not hold comprehensive diversity data for all jurors; therefore, no assessment has been made of the impact of excusals for financial hardship on jury diversity.

We are mindful of the impact that jury service can have on jurors in the context of long running trials, particularly jurors who have financial concerns.

It is, in part, for that reason that we are introducing the option of judge-only trials for highly complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases - where the trials can take months and therefore impose a disproportionate burden on jurors.

Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. All support to jurors is kept under regular review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible.

Jurors do not receive direct payment for jury service but may claim allowances towards financial loss, travel and subsistence. There has been no separate assessment of the maximum daily rate of the loss of earnings allowance or the financial impact of jury service on lower-paid workers.

We recognise that some individuals may experience financial difficulties serving. Applications for excusal due to exceptional circumstances, such as financial hardship, can be made when summoned. The proportion of those who apply for this is low, as shown by the latest figure below for 2025/2026:

• 7.6% of all excusals were due to financial hardship.

Courts may also be able to arrange to pay expenses during the trial if a juror is facing financial hardship.

The number of jurors who have claimed the loss of earnings allowance each year for the past five years is not routinely available and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We do not hold comprehensive diversity data for all jurors; therefore, no assessment has been made of the impact of excusals for financial hardship on jury diversity.

We are mindful of the impact that jury service can have on jurors in the context of long running trials, particularly jurors who have financial concerns.

It is, in part, for that reason that we are introducing the option of judge-only trials for highly complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases - where the trials can take months and therefore impose a disproportionate burden on jurors.

Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. All support to jurors is kept under regular review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible.

Jurors do not receive direct payment for jury service but may claim allowances towards financial loss, travel and subsistence. There has been no separate assessment of the maximum daily rate of the loss of earnings allowance or the financial impact of jury service on lower-paid workers.

We recognise that some individuals may experience financial difficulties serving. Applications for excusal due to exceptional circumstances, such as financial hardship, can be made when summoned. The proportion of those who apply for this is low, as shown by the latest figure below for 2025/2026:

• 7.6% of all excusals were due to financial hardship.

Courts may also be able to arrange to pay expenses during the trial if a juror is facing financial hardship.

The number of jurors who have claimed the loss of earnings allowance each year for the past five years is not routinely available and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We do not hold comprehensive diversity data for all jurors; therefore, no assessment has been made of the impact of excusals for financial hardship on jury diversity.

We are mindful of the impact that jury service can have on jurors in the context of long running trials, particularly jurors who have financial concerns.

It is, in part, for that reason that we are introducing the option of judge-only trials for highly complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases - where the trials can take months and therefore impose a disproportionate burden on jurors.

Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. All support to jurors is kept under regular review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible.

Jurors do not receive direct payment for jury service but may claim allowances towards financial loss, travel and subsistence. There has been no separate assessment of the maximum daily rate of the loss of earnings allowance or the financial impact of jury service on lower-paid workers.

We recognise that some individuals may experience financial difficulties serving. Applications for excusal due to exceptional circumstances, such as financial hardship, can be made when summoned. The proportion of those who apply for this is low, as shown by the latest figure below for 2025/2026:

• 7.6% of all excusals were due to financial hardship.

Courts may also be able to arrange to pay expenses during the trial if a juror is facing financial hardship.

The number of jurors who have claimed the loss of earnings allowance each year for the past five years is not routinely available and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We do not hold comprehensive diversity data for all jurors; therefore, no assessment has been made of the impact of excusals for financial hardship on jury diversity.

We are mindful of the impact that jury service can have on jurors in the context of long running trials, particularly jurors who have financial concerns.

It is, in part, for that reason that we are introducing the option of judge-only trials for highly complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases - where the trials can take months and therefore impose a disproportionate burden on jurors.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to funding the provision of temporary accommodation under CAS3, with basic support, for eligible prison leavers in England and Wales who are at risk of homelessness, for up to 84 nights.

The Ministry of Justice is preparing to commence a competitive procurement exercise for CAS3 provision shortly. The estimated cost is commercially sensitive at this point. Contract award information will be published once the procurement process has concluded.

HMPPS continually monitors demand for CAS3 accommodation. In preparation for all early release schemes introduced since July 2024, work has taken place to maximise the use of Community Accommodation Service places. Most eligible prison leavers subject to probation supervision who were at risk of homelessness at the point of release were offered CAS3 support within existing provision. A small number were provided with alternative arrangements until their CAS3 provision became available. Existing CAS3 supply is expected to meet demand arising from early-release schemes, with contingency measures in place should these be required.

In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice launched a pilot allowing victims of rape and other sexual offences to apply for a free transcript of the judge's sentencing remarks in their Crown Court cases. The pilot ran between May 2024 and May 2025, and the total cost of delivering the pilot was £41,423.83.

Following the pilot, the Government confirmed in May 2025 that victims of rape and sexual offences whose cases were heard at the Crown Court would continue to be able to request free sentencing remark transcripts, helping victims better understand the outcome of their case and the reasons for the sentence imposed.

The Department is currently conducting an Access to Justice assessment of the Employment Tribunal which will include exploration of whether there are disproportionate waiting times experienced by those with protected characteristics. We expect to publish this by the end of March 2027.

We recognise that prolonged waiting times can be challenging for all ET users and remain committed to ensuring the Employment Tribunal is fair, lawful, and accessible to all users. We are taking action to increase capacity, improve efficiency and reduce waiting times, including through maximising sitting days and recruiting more employment judges.

We recognise the significant pressure facing Employment Tribunals (ET) and are taking action to increase capacity, improve efficiency and reduce waiting times.

The ET was funded to sit for 32,590 days in 2026/27. The ET also operates a ‘Virtual Region’ allowing more cases to be heard remotely and matching available judicial resource to workload. The expectation is that this will reduce waiting times in geographical areas with particularly high waiting times (such as London and the South East). Alongside this, the ET has delegated more powers to Legal Officers to enable them to carry out functions of a judicial nature.

The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Business, Innovation, Science and Trade have set up the Dispute Resolution System Taskforce to support the Government in considering options to reform the employment dispute system so it works better for both workers and businesses. This Taskforce consists of unions, businesses, legal representatives and third sector organisations.

The introduction of the Fair Work Agency (FWA) is expected to take demand out of the ET. The FWA is responsible for enforcing domestic agency rules, the National Minimum Wage, licensing standards for gangmasters, and acting against serious labour exploitation. In time, it will also enforce additional rights, such as holiday pay and statutory sick pay.

The Crown Court and magistrates’ courts operate differently, and audio recording is not yet fully in place across magistrates’ courts. As part of preparations for criminal court reforms, HMCTS is making good progress in testing and planning the rollout of recording equipment across all magistrates’ courts. This reflects Lord Brian Leveson’s recommendation for mandatory recording to improve transparency and support reforms to the appeals process.

Our immediate priority is to ensure recording is introduced consistently, reliably, and securely. As trial and sentencing proceedings in magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be universally provided either free of charge or through payment. Extending free transcript provision to magistrates’ court sentencing remarks is not currently under consideration.

Once recording capability is in place, and as we explore how technology, such as AI, could support transcription, we will be better positioned to consider what further transcript provision might look like. Any future expansion of free provision would need to be proportionate and take account of operational capacity, legal safeguards and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

The Crown Court and magistrates’ courts operate differently, and audio recording is not yet fully in place across magistrates’ courts. As part of preparations for criminal court reforms, HMCTS is making good progress in testing and planning the rollout of recording equipment across all magistrates’ courts. This reflects Lord Brian Leveson’s recommendation for mandatory recording to improve transparency and support reforms to the appeals process.

Our immediate priority is to ensure recording is introduced consistently, reliably, and securely. As trial and sentencing proceedings in magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be universally provided either free of charge or through payment. Extending free transcript provision to magistrates’ court sentencing remarks is not currently under consideration.

Once recording capability is in place, and as we explore how technology, such as AI, could support transcription, we will be better positioned to consider what further transcript provision might look like. Any future expansion of free provision would need to be proportionate and take account of operational capacity, legal safeguards and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

Improving victims' experience of the criminal justice system is a key priority. That is why we have committed to implementing Section 22 of the Sentencing Act 2026, which will enable all victims of crime whose cases are heard in the Crown Court to request a free transcript of the sentencing remarks in their case.

Our ambition remains to ensure this will be available from Spring 2027. However, at this stage, as the Department continues to develop how this expanded service will operate, and to assess likely demand and costs, we are not yet in a position to provide an estimate of the annual cost, nor the assumptions underpinning it. These will be considered in depth as we work towards implementation

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to funding the provision of temporary accommodation under CAS3, with basic support, for eligible prison leavers in England and Wales who are at risk of homelessness, for up to 84 nights.

The Ministry of Justice is preparing to commence a competitive procurement exercise for CAS3 provision shortly. The estimated cost is commercially sensitive at this point. Contract award information will be published once the procurement process has concluded.

HMPPS continually monitors demand for CAS3 accommodation. In preparation for all early release schemes introduced since July 2024, work has taken place to maximise the use of Community Accommodation Service places. Most eligible prison leavers subject to probation supervision who were at risk of homelessness at the point of release were offered CAS3 support within existing provision. A small number were provided with alternative arrangements until their CAS3 provision became available. Existing CAS3 supply is expected to meet demand arising from early-release schemes, with contingency measures in place should these be required.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to funding the provision of temporary accommodation under CAS3, with basic support, for eligible prison leavers in England and Wales who are at risk of homelessness, for up to 84 nights.

The Ministry of Justice is preparing to commence a competitive procurement exercise for CAS3 provision shortly. The estimated cost is commercially sensitive at this point. Contract award information will be published once the procurement process has concluded.

HMPPS continually monitors demand for CAS3 accommodation. In preparation for all early release schemes introduced since July 2024, work has taken place to maximise the use of Community Accommodation Service places. Most eligible prison leavers subject to probation supervision who were at risk of homelessness at the point of release were offered CAS3 support within existing provision. A small number were provided with alternative arrangements until their CAS3 provision became available. Existing CAS3 supply is expected to meet demand arising from early-release schemes, with contingency measures in place should these be required.

The number of individuals currently awaiting completion of security and vetting checks within His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) was 13,319 as of 12 October 2026.

This figure reflects the full onboarding pipeline, covering candidates from the point at which they receive a provisional offer and enter pre-employment checks, through to the completion of all security and vetting processes and a final decision being made on their case. For operational roles requiring initial training, it also includes individuals who have been granted clearance but are awaiting a place on a training course. The figure therefore captures individuals at different stages of onboarding, rather than solely those awaiting a vetting decision.

It also includes those awaiting additional job-role specific clearances, such as Non-Police Personnel Vetting (NPPV) and National Security Vetting (NSV), and those currently undergoing renewal of their HMPPS security clearance.

The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold sufficiently robust or complete data to accurately report on the length of time individuals have been awaiting security and vetting clearance across all stages or providers. Vetting and pre-employment checks are undertaken through a combination of HMPPS, Shared Services Limited (SSL), and other parallel processes. As a result, a consolidated and reliable breakdown of waiting times, such as those exceeding three, six, or twelve months, is not available, and therefore unable to be provided.

The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport wrote jointly to 12 local authorities on 23 September, urging them to make provision for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service vehicles to use bus lanes, in order to help the courts to deliver speedier justice. These authorities were selected because traffic congestion, leading to court delays, can be a particular problem in those areas. To date, Birmingham, Newcastle, Brighton, and Northampton have replied, and all these have indicated their readiness to adopt the recommended approach.

We are monitoring the responses we receive from local authorities and are keeping the position under review.

The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport wrote jointly to 12 local authorities on 23 September, urging them to make provision for Prisoner Escort and Custody Service vehicles to use bus lanes, in order to help the courts to deliver speedier justice. These authorities were selected because traffic congestion, leading to court delays, can be a particular problem in those areas. To date, Birmingham, Newcastle, Brighton, and Northampton have replied, and all these have indicated their readiness to adopt the recommended approach.

We are monitoring the responses we receive from local authorities and are keeping the position under review.

HMPPS works closely with Children's Services and other safeguarding partners to protect children who may be affected by offending behaviour. Information sharing and partnership working are central to this approach and are supported by the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children.

Staff working with offenders receive safeguarding training and are required to engage with Children's Social Care where there are concerns about a child's safety or wellbeing. In assessing risk, probation practitioners are required to consider the potential impact of an offender's behaviour on children and families and must contribute to child protection processes where appropriate.

Where a prisoner is assessed as posing a risk of harm to children, prisons restrict contact and seek the views of Children's Social Care before contact takes place. In addition, offenders convicted of serious sexual, violent or terrorist offences who receive a qualifying sentence may be managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), through which the police, prisons, probation and other agencies work together to assess and manage risk in the community.

HMPPS is also supporting implementation of the Information Sharing Duty introduced through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act.

Working closely with the Department for Education, we are running pilots to test how information from across the criminal justice system and public services can help recognise and support children and families affected by parental imprisonment.

Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders convicted of sexual offences against children. For offences involving indecent images of children (under Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1) the law provides for a significant maximum penalty of 10 years’ custody, reflecting the seriousness with which Parliament and the courts treat this type of offending.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. When deciding what sentence to impose the courts consider the circumstances of the offence including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council.

Sentencing guidelines for offences involving indecent images of children set out that Category A offences should attract the highest sentence starting points. The guidelines set out a range of factors for the court to consider at sentencing including for example, the number and nature of the images, the extent of any sharing, distribution or production, the offender’s level of involvement, whether there is evidence of a sexual interest in children, and any abuse of trust. Courts should also consider the potential harm caused to victims, even where that harm is not directly visible. The relevant sentencing guidelines can be found here: Possession of indecent photograph of child/ Indecent photographs of children.

The Sentencing Act 2026 introduced a presumption for the courts to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less. Courts will always be able to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, an individual is at significant risk of harm, or there are exceptional circumstances which would justify not suspending the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice publishes statistics on sentencing outcomes for offenders sentenced for a wide range of offences, including offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders convicted of sexual offences against children. For offences involving indecent images of children (under Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1) the law provides for a significant maximum penalty of 10 years’ custody, reflecting the seriousness with which Parliament and the courts treat this type of offending.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. When deciding what sentence to impose the courts consider the circumstances of the offence including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council.

Sentencing guidelines for offences involving indecent images of children set out that Category A offences should attract the highest sentence starting points. The guidelines set out a range of factors for the court to consider at sentencing including for example, the number and nature of the images, the extent of any sharing, distribution or production, the offender’s level of involvement, whether there is evidence of a sexual interest in children, and any abuse of trust. Courts should also consider the potential harm caused to victims, even where that harm is not directly visible. The relevant sentencing guidelines can be found here: Possession of indecent photograph of child/ Indecent photographs of children.

The Sentencing Act 2026 introduced a presumption for the courts to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less. Courts will always be able to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, an individual is at significant risk of harm, or there are exceptional circumstances which would justify not suspending the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice publishes statistics on sentencing outcomes for offenders sentenced for a wide range of offences, including offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders convicted of sexual offences against children. For offences involving indecent images of children (under Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1) the law provides for a significant maximum penalty of 10 years’ custody, reflecting the seriousness with which Parliament and the courts treat this type of offending.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. When deciding what sentence to impose the courts consider the circumstances of the offence including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council.

Sentencing guidelines for offences involving indecent images of children set out that Category A offences should attract the highest sentence starting points. The guidelines set out a range of factors for the court to consider at sentencing including for example, the number and nature of the images, the extent of any sharing, distribution or production, the offender’s level of involvement, whether there is evidence of a sexual interest in children, and any abuse of trust. Courts should also consider the potential harm caused to victims, even where that harm is not directly visible. The relevant sentencing guidelines can be found here: Possession of indecent photograph of child/ Indecent photographs of children.

The Sentencing Act 2026 introduced a presumption for the courts to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less. Courts will always be able to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, an individual is at significant risk of harm, or there are exceptional circumstances which would justify not suspending the sentence.

The Ministry of Justice publishes statistics on sentencing outcomes for offenders sentenced for a wide range of offences, including offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, in the Outcomes by Offence data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

As set out in the annual report, the change in reporting approach relates to all costs being reported in 2024/25 base prices in line with NISTA requirements. This is a change from previous years where costs were reported in nominal prices.

We remain committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and aim to do so by 2031, as set out in the December 2024 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy.

Based on current delivery plans, we expect to deliver additional capacity at the following prisons by the end of 2028 under the Prison Supply programmes:

*For sites delivering over 10 places, and the overall total, figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 and are subject to minor changes.

As set out in the Lord Chancellor’s announcement of 1 September 2026, we have committed to delivering further additional prison places through converting existing prison spaces into operational cells and have bought forward £110 million of existing funding to deliver these. The locations at which additional places will be delivered, and the exact number of places at each site, will be determined following feasibility assessments and work across the estate. Dates are forecast and subject to movement in construction and mobilisation programmes.

Pursuant to the answer of 8 September to Question 23428, we have also delivered additional prison places through the refurbishment or reconfiguration of individual cells at the following sites:

Pursuant to the answer of 11 September to Question 28100, as set out in the Lord Chancellor’s announcement of 1 September 2026, we have committed to delivering further additional prison places through converting existing prison spaces into operational cells and have bought forward £110 million of existing funding to deliver these. The locations at which additional places will be delivered, and the exact number of places at each site, will be determined following feasibility assessments and work across the estate.

Prior to this announcement, plans were in place to deliver places at the following sites through the refurbishment and reconfiguration of individual cells: